Skip to comments.Mother forced to give birth alone in toilet of 'flagship' NHS hospital (Democrat Party HealthCare)
Posted on 08/21/2007 1:43:32 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember
A young mother had to deliver her own baby in the lavatory of a flagship hospital because there were no trained midwives available.
Surveyor Catherine Brown had made the agonising decision to undergo a chemically-induced abortion after being told her 18-week pregnancy was risking her life.
But when the time came to give birth she was on an ear, nose and throat ward and had only her mother to help her through the ordeal. Her premature son Edward died in her arms minutes later.
The traumatised mother-of-one said: "I just howled and howled. I remember sitting there looking at him and thinking, 'What do I do next?'. I just sat there on the toilet looking at my dead baby.
"It was dreadful - a terrible nightmare. Then I started crying my eyes out and repeating, 'I'm sorry baby, I'm so sorry'. I still can't believe the hospital had no trained staff who could help me."
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
The “Flagship” is presumably the “Titanic”.
Well she decided to chemically abort it and the “delivery” was the result. I don’t call that “giving birth”, even if she was told to abort it for her own health reasons.
Not to say that she should have had to do it alone!
One major difference between the US and the rest of the world is that our nation does everything to save premature babies, and allow them to go to delivery, etc. This results ultimately in an artificially higher infant mortality rates.
An example of this is the recent birth of Canadian Quadruplets in the USA, since there are no adequate functioning intensive care for premies even in Canada’s wealthier provinces.
This baby would be more likely to be alive in the US. In the UK, this baby and mom were put in servere harm’s way by total neglect. The mom in fact was essentially coerced into a nightmare unnecessary pregnancy termination.
You point is well taken, but see post 5.
Mother forced to give birth alone in toilet of ‘flagship’ NHS hospital (Democrat Party HealthCare) - previously posted....but.....
still the plan that the piaps will bring to a healthcare plan...coming to you soon!!!
You’ll never grow old, with Hillary-Care.
If the state is footing the bill, there is no way they are going to pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars required to maintain the life of a premature infant. This story may be bad PR for a day, but from the state’s point of view, they saved a heck of a lot of money.
Beautiful. I think I'll steal it!
Ah, but it was free.
I was thinking just like you.
This thing about a mother’s “health”, well that’s their code word for....”anybody, anytime”.
What possible danger to a healthy young woman’s life can carrying a foetus, in this case at what....18 weeks?
Anything is possible, I know...but what are the odds?
The libs will ram this, too, down your throat one millimeter at a time until the likes of you have been sold.
Welcome to the nanny state, where Hillary would at leaset “care” for you.
In Britain you must call ahead to the emergency room to see if they can fit you and your emergency in.
I read the Daily Mail pretty regularly and the medical fiasco’s are unconscionable.
She didn’t give birth. This was an abortion which the child survived for a few moments in an incompetent hospital.
You have to wonder if American doctor’s would have said “hey, we can save your baby AND you”. Europe’s answer is always to kill the child.
I do wonder what is not being told in this story. A UTI should be treatable. A hemmorhage may or may not stop, but if it’s serious enough that the woman’s life is directly threatened she should be under constant care - I would guess she should have a C-section to stop the bleeding at once. I’ve heard of a number of cases of oligohydraminos (low amniotic fluid) eventually resolving themselves - but that’s not in itself a direct threat to the mother. And ultrasounds have given false readings.
Now if the amniotic membranes had ruptured and were infected - that is a direct threat, and I don’t think the pregnancy is salvageable.
They would have had to be able to prolong the pregnancy for six weeks for the baby to have had a chance. 18 weekers don’t survive anywhere.
Frankly, I think it is surprising and appropriate that they called it “giving birth.” At least that’s admitting that the little boy they killed was a human being, more than the usual drivel.
It's articles like this that make me wonder how the human race made it this far.
Good time to purchase incinerator manufacturers stock.
brilliant cartoon: post 23
Not at 18 weeks. But in principle, the point you make is true.
Not at 18 weeks, yes. She was told was doomed if she carried to term, which I don't see justification for. By aborting all potential problem babies, the infant mortality rates for the UK and its ilk are all lower than the USA.
“Now if the amniotic membranes had ruptured and were infected - that is a direct threat, and I dont think the pregnancy is salvageable.
They would have had to be able to prolong the pregnancy for six weeks for the baby to have had a chance. 18 weekers dont survive anywhere.”
It does sound like there was somethig amiss with the membrane and possible infection.
Then the question remains - how do deal with that condition?
Obviously the approach here was to initiate an abortion.
It is too bad the focus isn’t on working to find a solution to this particular problem.
Are they trying to figure out how to save babies when the membranes have ruptured or leaked? How to save them when infection sets in?
It doesn’t sound like this woman intended to abort this pregnancy, and if abortion weren’t such an “easy” solution to difficult pregnancies I wonder how many risky situations like this could be treated if the researchers would concentrate on that.
And where was the father of the baby during this ordeal? Nevermind. [/elephant-in-the-room]
That’s over four months. I thought only the first trimester was critical for potential miscarriage. Of babies, I mean, not of justice.
Yes, and worth every penny. And that is the central fact of socialism - it is always sold to the public as saving money, but in fact what it systematically does is to outlaw whatever is not cheap.
Hillary and the Democrats speak of "quality health care," but the reality of socialism is that you cannot eliminate top quality, bleeding-edge health care and still maintain even the current standard of normal care. That is so because, as Tom Peters pointed out in In Search of Excellence, if you stop trying to improve you will not maintain where you were, you will go backward.
Furthermore, the mission of the United States is "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. And the "blessings of liberty" include the vigorous entrepreneurship which continuously improve both the quality and the economy of the things and services we want. To stop improving health care now would be to betray our grandchildren, who deserve to mature to our age and pity us for the almost primitive nature of our health care compared to that which is our legacy to them - just as you and I pity our grandparents and even our parents for the relatively primitive health care which was available to them.
My own mother had a kidney removed about 25 years ago, and the incision was nearly halfway around the circumference of her body. Today that same operation would do so little collateral damage that you would be able to leave the hospital a day after the surgery. I don't know how exactly they will make similar improvements in surgery over the next two generations - but surely it would be folly to close the patent office on the assumption that "everything has already been invented."
“since there are no adequate functioning intensive care for premies even in Canadas wealthier provinces.”
my niece was born very premature in Victoria BC.. she’s 5 now.
Denial is amazing.
If there was adequate functioning intensive care for premies in Canada, the quadruplets would not have been sent to the US.
18 weeks IMHO is not viable and therefore this was never an option but she should not have been left alone to give birth to a child and even more horrific that the child would be born alive but could not survive.
It is a shame that that medically they could not have given her another few weeks and then induced labour but I presume the risk to her life was too great to do so and by that time the child would have probably died given the medical reasons for the termination.
I know several people who have had very small babies survive but IMHO this one was just too small and young regardless of the circumstance.
IMHO the mother/grandmother should sue the hospital, the local NHS trust and the individual nursing staff who did not administer their duty of care.
When dad had his hip op he was told that the reason for the delay was an 8 hour op on a very young, very sick baby but babies always take priority.
As is in all countries you cannot have a unit in every town and an ambulance journey maybe necessary but that I am certain would also be true in the US.
We have patients in the UK from all over the world because they want a particular treatment or doctor not available in their country.
It does not necessarily mean it is not available in their country but not the treatment they want or can afford.
Also before you say it yes Brits also travel elsewhere for treatment because as yet it may not have been approved in Britain or they are taking part in research medicine.
Also sometimes if they want something quicker than on the NHS and cannot afford to pay private in Britain they may go somewhere else in the world where it is cheaper. Often have the op travel back and then get back into the NHS sytem for aftercare, called using the system.
Hey! I am an anglophile, but I am not an idiot.
The answer to your comment is "Yes and no." PRIVATE British medicine is often excellent. The SOCIALIZED NHS is less than adequate. In fact it is the among the worst in Europe.
A woman I know gave birth alone in a broom closet at her official NHS facility without staff, because they were full and understaffed.
I don’t know the details of the medical reasons to induce this abortion, but I suspect they may have been dubious as well.
Precisely! She was lied to and told she would in harms way if she had a baby.
Provided they aren’t aborted...
I don’t know the reasons for this inducing, but I find it dubious, at 18 weeks, you are 1 month or less from a fighting chance of viability, and 2 months from an good chance.
I’d like to know what exactly the diagnosis was that lead to recommendation for induction.
Color me skeptical, but forcing an abortion, particularly with no staff around is far more likely to have complications that would harm the mothers life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.